Dialogue: Koreas' talks unlikely to cover reunification - yet

By MICHAEL ALLEN*

The announcement that the leaders of North and South Korea have agreed to meet in the North Korean capital of Pyongyang was both unexpected and extremely important.

If the June summit meeting indeed takes place - high-level meetings between representatives of the two countries have been scuttled before - it will be the first time the heads of state of these two peninsular rivals have sat at the same table.

Regardless of what concrete agreements may emerge from the meeting - and even if there are no major agreements at all - the event will be a historic occasion, worthy of all the attention it will receive.

The summit announcement must be seen against the backdrop of 55 years of division characterised by mutual hostility and distrust.

The division, carried out in 1945 by the United States and the Soviet Union for their own purposes, was solidified by the destructive three-year war that began in 1950 and quickly became an international conflict.

An estimated three million people died in the Korean War, including more than 30 New Zealand soldiers who were there as part of a combined United Nations force sent to aid South Korea.

In the slow post-war recovery, North Korea had the initial advantage. With substantial external aid, its economic development generally outpaced that of the south into the 1970s.

That situation changed when the South Korean economy, led by a new corps of technocrats, was reoriented towards export-led growth.

This shift launched South Korea on a path that, combined with the inability or unwillingness of North Korea to react as flexibly to changing world conditions, resulted in the gap between North and South Korea that can be seen today.

At the same time, both governments have courted acceptance and diplomatic recognition by other countries, while continuing to carry on a propaganda war at home.

Incidents that make international headlines - prominent in the 1990s were a brief naval clash, high-profile North Korean defections and the infiltration of a miniature submarine into South Korea - do not tell the whole story of the relationship between North and South.

There has, in fact, been trade between the two countries (sometimes direct, sometimes via third countries), in addition to attempts to communicate and cooperate on other fronts.

Despite such brief possibilities of warming, however, North-South relations over the past decade have generally been marked by coolness and even belligerence.

Since his inauguration in early 1998, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung has pursued a "sunshine policy" of encouraging positive engagement with North Korea.

The impending summit would be by far the most dramatic outcome of that policy, though North Korea has its own reasons (largely economic) for wanting to ratchet down the confrontational tone of North-South relations. There are short and long-term reasons for both countries - and both leaders - to be interested in a successful summit.

In the short term, the timing of the summit announcement raised questions in South Korea. Coming only days before elections to the national assembly, it opened Kim Dae Jung to charges of using the summit as a way to promote his party.

As it turned out, the President's party failed to win a majority of seats. Nevertheless, Kim is still able to point to the summit agreement as validation of his policy toward the North.

At the same time, in Pyongyang Kim Jong Il has really not been able to portray himself as an international player up to this point, except during the "do they or don't they?" nuclear weapon scare of a few years ago. He can now put himself on the diplomatic front page. After all, the South Korean President is coming to him.

In the longer term, the summit means that the chance of war on the peninsula is reduced, while the possibility of trade is increased.

And for North Korea, any reduction in hostility brightens the prospects for badly needed economic aid.

It is these longer-term possibilities that make this prospective summit important. For that reason, it is essential to look beyond short-term political posturing by either side.

In the longest term, of course, talks such as the proposed Pyongyang summit may help to pave the way for eventual peaceful reunification, though that will certainly not be on the agenda next month.

Summits such as these are no guarantee of reunification, or even of movement toward that end. But there will be no substantial warming of relations, and no creation of an environment in which a variety of contacts and exchanges can be openly conducted, without such talks.

It should be kept in mind, however, that these talks are not about reunification. Likely topics of discussion include trade, economic cooperation, cultural exchanges and certainly the tragic issue of families separated since the Korean War.

Progress in any of these areas would be positive indeed, and should be welcomed by anyone concerned with the prospects for peace in the post-Cold War world.

* Dr Michael Allen is a lecturer in Asian history and culture at the University of Auckland.